Comment by omk
6 years ago
Am I the only one seeing the pattern here. Most security loop holes I have witness have existed at the cost of providing a better user experience.
6 years ago
Am I the only one seeing the pattern here. Most security loop holes I have witness have existed at the cost of providing a better user experience.
This is the security - usability tradeoff and is as old as the hills.
Yeah, it's a tradeoff by nature. This applies to security in general, not just computers. Having to unlock the door to your house when your hands are full with shopping is annoying, but the alternative is leaving your house unlocked all the time and trusting nobody will walk in.
Depending on the context (location, is there usually someone home anyway, value of stuff within the house) you may or may not find the tradeoff makes sense and voluntarily opt for the worse 'UX'.
See also: Boeing 737 Max
3 replies →
The fun thing is users mistakenly recognise the tradeoff as a sign of the security. If it was annoying it must be secure. Why would somebody waste my time for no purpose? See also placebo effect - of course I feel better, you gave me pills and I took them, duh, it's medicine.
This is the pattern of applications continuing to be deeply flawed and heavily advertised as long as you can be bought for a billion by IBM/Microsoft/Google/Facebook/TechOverlorfOfTheYear and finally get into a stable enough state so that they can be part of the infrastructure when a full-features open source version emerges.